Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

U.S. vs Arzberger

Discussion in 'Legal' started by krishl, Jan 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. krishl

    krishl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2
  2. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Very interesting for a number of reasons. Thank you for posting the link. ;)
     
  3. Duke of Doubt

    Duke of Doubt member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    The reasoning is unassailable.

    Assuming similar reasoning is applied, this eventually should spell the end of that part of the 1993 Violence Against Women Act which prohibits those subject to a temporary or permanent protective order from possessing firearms ABSENT A HEARING on the special risk posed by the person subject to the order.
     
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,434
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Good reasoning -- too bad it's only a District Court ruling. If we can start getting some opinions on these lines from some courts of appeal we'll really be getting somewhere.
     
  5. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    This is going to be particularly interesting if the Bradys (and a few of their supporters on this very board) succeed in getting people's rights infringed for merely appearing on the terrorist watch list.
     
  6. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    This is just the sort of case law that is necessary to build on from Heller.

    I firmly expect that the finding will be appealed and if upheld could also be a particularly useful tool for review of other restrictive laws such as Lautenberg.

    And all from NYC as well........:D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page